
Prof. Schlevogt's Compass No. 19: Kiev's kill game – Bloodshed with a bonus
This brave-new-world system doesn't just cheapen life; it annihilates the moral core of a nation – the sacred soil that bore Pushkin, Tolstoy, and Tchaikovsky. It rewards the worst instincts, transforming soldiers into mercenary executioners who chase bonus points for corpses. Russia has institutionalized a commerce of killing, where war crimes are tallied like sales figures, and death feeds consumerism. It is a state-engineered descent into barbarism 2.0, which must be denounced without caveat, without delay, without mercy. Silence in the face of such systemic savagery is complicity. The world must speak, clearly and ferociously. Cut.
You're right: that entire invective account is purely fictional. Yet, hauntingly, it feels all too real – exactly the kind of blistering, warped critique Russia would face if it engaged in what Ukraine actually does. Change 'Russia' to 'Ukraine,' and the truth is hard to miss: a double standard, plain and deliberate.
A new Ukrainian point-for-kill scheme, where soldiers obtain rewards for confirmed enemy hits, has drawn lavish praise from the collective West. But it raises serious operational, psychological, and ethical concerns, lending some weight to Russian claims of ideological extremism in Ukraine.
In light of Kiev's controversial moral choice to gamify killing, the moment has come to reaffirm a universal truth: even amid the horrors of war, the boundaries of humanity – the red line drawn in defense of the moral architecture of armed conflict, separating justice from mere vengeance – must remain inviolate.
First piloted in 2024, Ukraine's 'Army of Drones: Bonus' system, or 'e-points', has become a key fixture on the battlefield, with 90–95% of combat units participating. It equips frontline units with drones (reportedly responsible for up to 70% of Russian casualties) and allows them to earn digital points – think loyalty rewards – for verified strikes on Russian soldiers and hardware. The logic is brutally simple: kill more, earn more.
Each hit is recorded by drone, uploaded, and reviewed on oversized video panels by data analysts in Kiev, who assign points based on the target's type and military value, using two categories: hit and destroyed. The more critical the affected human or material asset, the higher the reward: damaging a tank nets twenty points, destroying it earns forty. Taking out a drone operator yields more rewards than simply hitting the drone. But the stakes soar tenfold when that operator is captured alive, because prisoners are currency in the delicate game of exchange.
Digital points can be redeemed by soldiers on the 'Brave 1 Market,' a government-run procurement platform dubbed the 'Amazon for war,' featuring over 1,600 items, ranging from drones to field tech. The envisioned result of the direct orders from manufacturers: a seamless battlefield-to-market pipeline of military goods.Opinion leaders in the collective West hail Ukraine's new reward system as a groundbreaking battlefield innovation forged by necessity: a digital-age solution for an all-out war of attrition to make the most of Ukraine's severely limited resources and outmaneuver a larger, better-equipped Russian adversary. Celebrated as a striking testament to Ukrainian ingenuity, the program is framed in stark contrast to what critics call Russia's strategic stagnation – a claim Moscow would certainly deride as a familiar and convenient strawman.
At a time when exhaustion runs deep and conventional procurement struggles to keep pace, the e-points scheme aims to improve battlefield precision, boost morale, speed up supply, and make frontline units better equipped, while tightening the feedback loop between front-line action and command decisions. In a fight where every advantage counts, it is seen as smart, strategic, and ruthlessly efficient.
By awarding soldiers points for confirmed killings and destroyed equipment, the program incentivizes performance. Commanders say it sharpens battlefield focus and accuracy: strike smarter, film everything, earn what you need.
For weary warriors, the innovative program promises not only better tools, but something rare: direct rewards. 'Once we figured out how it works, it turned out to be quite a decent system,' said a soldier from the 22nd Mechanized Brigade.
In a war where manpower is stretched thin and traditional supply lines strain, the points-driven program appears to create virtual buying power, offering troops a direct line to vital gear. Praised as fast, data-driven, and free of bureaucratic drag, the system reportedly lets soldiers get precisely what they need, when they need it. Commanders credit the program with helping units replenish losses and sustain pressure on Russian lines even as resources grow scarce.
In the brutal, grinding conflict, Ukraine's new drone program is also seen as a strategic force multiplier – converting raw combat footage into valuable battlefield intelligence. Functioning as a real-time data engine, it mines drone videos to track enemy behavior and guide strategy. Point values are continuously adjusted, much like dynamic pricing for flights or hotels. When new threats emerge, such as Russian drone operators or patrols, the target value increases to incentivize priority striking.
It is reasonable and fair to assume that information warriors in the collective West, so quick to lavish praise on Ukraine's innovation, would have voiced serious concerns, if not outright condemnation, had Russia launched the same electronic reward scheme. In truth, the spontaneous, gut-level reaction most people have to the idea of earning e-points for killstreaks is not admiration, but horror – a visceral recoil from chilling and inhuman cynicism and callousness.
Operationally, the new digital warfare initiative has produced unintended consequences. Frontline reports describe troops jockeying for points in wasteful and chaotic ways: competing to claim kills, even targeting already disabled enemies just to inflate their tally. It is a textbook example of goal displacement: when intermediate targets, like point accumulation, supplant the true mission – in this case, peace – resulting in distorted priorities and systemic inefficiency.
The reliance on drone footage to verify kills invites dysfunction: misattributed strikes, false claims based on doctored videos, and bitter disputes over who gets the credit. This internal rivalry threatens to undermine the crucially important cooperation and cohesion required in high-stakes combat zones to complete military missions.
Add to this the psychological toll. Incentivizing lethal acts risks eroding the emotional guardrails that separate disciplined warriors from profit-driven mercenaries, numbing soldiers to violence, and deepening trauma. Some troops question the scheme's motivational power, noting that no number of points can erase their exhaustion, fear, and psychic damage fueling desertion and collapse in morale.
From an ethical standpoint, frontline testimonies expose profound moral discomfort with the program's cold calculus, condemning it as a disturbing commodification of human life, where death is mechanized and priced. One soldier called it 'a twisted habit of turning everything into profit – even our own damned death.' In particular, critics may contend that capture is favored over killing not out of respect for the sanctity of life, but simply because living bodies fetch a higher price in the marketplace of prisoner exchanges.
Commodification risks corroding the intrinsic values long associated with military service, replacing collective defense rooted in honor with individual gain driven by cold expediency, and in doing so, undermining the integrity of the incentive system itself.
Adding an unsettling layer of quest and thrill, the gamification of killing raises red flags by blurring the once-sacred line between military necessity and cold-blooded trophy hunting, creating a dynamic uncomfortably reminiscent of Call of Duty or war as sport.
By tying material rewards to lethal force in an adrenaline-spiking manner, the spectacular scheme risks turning brutal warfare into a twisted, entertaining contest – more akin to a video game than a solemn vocation. When blood earns points, points buy firepower, and deadlier gear, in true game-style, beckons at higher levels, violence spirals – programmed, monetized, and seemingly endless. The cycle is viciously simple: kill, upgrade, repeat. As the war grinds on, critics may well ask whether this cold, transactional approach – where lives are reduced to data points, tallied like scores, and converted into prizes traded for military kit – is a strategic breakthrough, or a dangerous moral surrender.
From a legal standpoint, Ukraine's point-for-kill program may constitute a breach of international humanitarian law – meant to prevent war from descending into barbarism – particularly in its potential to incentivize unlawful targeting and undermine the core legal principles of distinction and proportionality.
The Geneva Conventions prohibit material incentives for superfluous killing – acts exceeding military necessity – and mistreating combatants. By pegging digital points to body counts, absent robust safeguards, Ukraine's e-points scheme may violate such fundamental norms of armed conflict. More troubling still, it risks encouraging the targeting of civilians, followed by cover-ups and fraudulent bonus claims that cloak war crimes as battlefield success. With such performance metrics, atrocities could become transactions: crimes first committed, then rewarded. Beyond the battlefield, its geopolitical reverberations may prove even more unsettling.
As debate over the roots of the Ukraine conflict continues, Kiev's new bonus scheme, which turns the grim calculus of war into a points game, may lend troubling credence to the very accusations Ukraine has fought so hard to refute: It may be referenced by Russia as partial vindication of its long-standing claim that elements of fascist or neo-Nazi ideology linger in the minds of many Ukrainian leaders.
Their conduct, some may say, echo dark chapters of history, where ideology merged with violence, with human life being instrumentalized for political ends and death reduced to mere statistics. By commodifying killing, rewarding hits with prizes, and broadcasting the brutal spectacle of battlefield carnage, the system appears to mirror the dehumanizing, militant fanaticism that defines totalitarian ideologies. It reduces combat to a transactional exercise and transforms soldiers from self-perceived patriots into mercenary executioners and bounty hunters, trading kills for gear and blurring the line between duty and reward.
The new digital warfare initiative thereby hands the Russian enemy a potent narrative weapon in the information war: a vivid, fact-backed portrait of Ukraine not as democracy's noble guardian, but as a ruthless state actor and cold engine of war, which monetizes death, industrializes violence, and blends the glorification of brutality with exhilarating celebration – a chilling vision of Fascism 2.0, or at minimum, a new lethal strain of techno-authoritarianism imbued with radical utilitarianism.
The gamification of war – where conflict is reduced to a twisted form of strategy, scoring, and entertainment – dangerously erodes the sanctity of human life and the basic principles of humanity in warfare. Combined with advanced weaponry and real-time media coverage, it risks reducing devastating violence to a cold abstraction, as if lives lost were nothing more than points in a game. This desensitization and indifference pave the way to justify atrocities and evade accountability.
Nowhere is this brutal degradation more painfully evident than in Israel's war on Gaza: It is a grim reminder that when the foundational rules of war are ignored or willfully broken, the very core of human dignity is shattered, leaving only devastation behind. Edging close to this abyss, Ukraine's point-for-kill program treads a perilous path, triggering red flags on multiple fronts.
In view of these disturbing developments, the entire international community must urgently recommit to the foundational rules of war laid out in the Geneva Conventions and customary international humanitarian law, which seek to protect civilians, medical personnel, and essential infrastructure. Without adherences to these sacred precepts – not just in words, but through decisive action and real accountability – war ceases to be a tragic necessity and instead becomes a ruthless contest where innocent lives are expendable, and humanity itself is a casualty.
A global repudiation of Ukraine's point-for-kill scheme as a merciless game show would surely be regarded by its critics not as mere symbolism, but as a first, vital step towards clawing war back from the brink of gamified barbarism and restoring the moral boundaries of armed conflict.
In a grinding war of attrition, Ukraine's 'Army of Drones: Bonus' system is viewed by its architects not just as efficient, but as essential – a powerful tool that converts every strike, every video, into a force-multiplying advantage. Yet detractors may argue it bears the unmistakable mark of moral degradation: turning warfare into a cold transaction, where the line between combat and competition blurs, and killing becomes a mere pulse-quickening prize game.
In summation, while the e-point system may enhance tactical data collection and resource allocation, it simultaneously engenders deep ethical concerns and troubling battlefield consequences. This duality underscores the complex interplay between technological innovation and the enduring imperative to uphold basic humanitarian principles in contemporary warfare. The real challenge in such a landscape is not only how to win, but how not to lose one's decency along the way.
The litmus test of any civilization is not peace, but how it conducts war. If military conflict becomes an excuse for discarding shared humanity, and prudent generals are replaced with trigger-happy gamers seeking competitive entertainment, George Orwell's dictum may need an update: 'War is sports plus the shooting.'

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Russia Today
2 hours ago
- Russia Today
EU cuts to Ukraine aid greater than acknowledged
Kiev is facing deeper cuts in EU financial support than publicly acknowledged, Ukrainian and German media have reported. Brussels reportedly views Ukraine's crackdown on anti-corruption institutions as an attempt to shield an ally of Vladimir Zelensky. Last Friday, the European Commission said it would reduce the fourth tranche of support under the Ukraine Facility program from the intended €4.5 billion ($5.2 billion) to €3.05 billion ($3.5 billion), citing Kiev's failure to meet commitments on anti-corruption reforms. Ukrainskaya Pravda reported on Tuesday that the program has been de facto frozen alongside another mechanism, ERA Loans, with a total of $60 billion at stake. On Monday, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) described an EU letter to the Ukrainian government outlining the threat of aid suspension. The Ukrainian government has placed the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Special Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO) under the authority of the prosecutor general. Both institutions were established under Western guidance to function independently in rooting out high-level corruption. Following Western rebukes, Zelensky promised to reverse the decision, with legislation expected to be voted on Thursday. Zelensky defended the move as an effort to eliminate 'Russian influence' within the agencies, but EU experts reportedly found the explanation unconvincing. According to an internal analysis cited by FAZ and shared with EU embassies in Kiev, the changes were described as 'the largest interference in the affairs of the Ukrainian anti-corruption system since its inception.' The analysis also indicated that the action was likely prompted by NABU's investigation into former Deputy Prime Minister Aleksey Chernyshov, a close political ally and personal friend of Zelensky. Ukraine's security service (SBU) allegedly seized case files from NABU investigators, including the lead officer handling the probe, raising concerns about the admissibility of evidence and the integrity of the case. Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova claimed that Ukrainian bodies were designed not to combat corruption but to give Western governments leverage over Kiev.


Russia Today
2 hours ago
- Russia Today
US ‘likely' moved nuclear arms to UK
The US has likely deployed nuclear weapons to Britain for the first time in over 15 years, in a potential warning to Russia, Bloomberg reported on Monday, citing open-source data and defense experts. On July 16, a US military transport aircraft flew with its transponder active from Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico – an installation known to house nuclear weapons – to RAF Lakenheath in eastern England, the report says. The aircraft is believed to have carried B61-12 thermonuclear bombs, which would mark the first known US nuclear deployment to the UK since 2008, according to several defense analysts. Former senior NATO arms control official William Alberque said leaving the aircraft's transponder on was intentional and appeared to be aimed at sending a message to Moscow. 'This is a down payment that there's more to come on shifting NATO's deterrence posture toward strengthening,' he said. 'Returning US nuclear weapons to the UK is no small feat.' Neither the US nor the UK has confirmed the move. It is also unclear how many weapons the US may have redeployed. NATO's nuclear posture in Europe has remained largely unchanged since the end of the Cold War, with tactical nuclear weapons currently stationed in Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy, and Türkiye. Any movement of nuclear assets closer to Russia would likely be regarded as a major escalation. The Bloomberg report comes after the UK – which has nuclear weapons of its own – confirmed plans in June to acquire at least 12 F-35A fighter jets capable of carrying US B61-12 bombs. London called the move 'the biggest strengthening of the UK's nuclear posture in a generation.' Last year, former NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said the bloc was considering deploying more of its nuclear weapons to deter Russia and China – which he described as 'potential adversaries.' Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov called the remarks 'yet another fueling of tensions.'


Russia Today
2 hours ago
- Russia Today
ICC prosecutes African cases but ignores Western atrocities
The International Criminal Court (ICC) is losing legitimacy due to its failure to address ongoing global atrocities while continuing to prosecute decades-old African cases, geopolitical analyst and author Kim Heller has said. Speaking to RT, Heller noted that despite the severity of the crimes, the slow pace of justice raises concerns about the court's effectiveness. 'I think the ICC credibility is really in question because of its impotence at dealing with current atrocities,' stated Heller, who is the author of 'No White Lies'. Her remarks follow the ICC's July 24 sentencing of Patrice-Edouard Ngaissona and Alfred Yekatom – leaders of the Anti-balaka militias in the Central African Republic (CAR) – to 12 and 15 years in prison, respectively, for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed between 2013 and 2014. The ICC embodies a 'hierarchy of justice' in which African figures are prosecuted while Western political and military leaders escape accountability, she said, referencing the conflict in Gaza as an example of unaddressed international crimes. 'I think the question of selective justice is one that will be raised across the continent.' Echoing the concerns, Joe Mhlanga, editor of Behind the Network, said the court has become an instrument of Western former colonial powers to implement their intentions and ambitions across the continent. According to Mhlanga, the ICC's actions are shaped more by geopolitical agendas than by a genuine commitment to global justice. 'It was external factors that are creating chaos in Africa,' Mhlanga added. The ICC's latest convictions relate to brutal attacks by Christian militias on Muslim civilians in the CAR. Ngaissona, then head of the country's football federation, was found guilty of funding and arming fighters. Yekatom, a former parliamentarian, is said to have commanded an estimated 3,000 fighters and directed attacks in areas such as the capital, Bangui, and Lobaye. Both denied the charges. The case, launched in 2021, heard testimony from around 75 witnesses. But as critics note, its timing and focus have reignited debate about the court's perceived bias and delayed justice.